Union Of India vs Biti W/O Valu Hembrom Besra (W/O ... on 30 April, 2026

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/FA/2302/2023                                   ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

                                                                                                               undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2302 of 2023

                       ==========================================================
                                                    UNION OF INDIA
                                                        Versus
                                    BITI W/O VALU HEMBROM BESRA (W/O DECEASED)
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR KUNAL M SHAH(5588) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                       MR PJ MEHTA(467) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                           Date : 30/04/2026

                                                               ORDER

Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

1. This First Appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short "the Act") is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.3.2023 passed by the leaned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Case No.OA (Iiu)/ADI/2019/0199, whereby the the learned Railway Tribunal allowed claim of Rs.8 lakh plus interest from the date of incident till the amount actually realized.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.10.2018, the deceased starting his journey, from Pakur to Vadodara railway station, by trains via Howrah-Nagpur, holding travelling ticket bearing No.UTE 83104417. It has further been averred in the claim application that on 27.10.2018 he wanted to get down

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2302/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

from the train at Vadodara Railway station (i.e his destination railway station), but, he could not get down at Vadodara Railway station and hence, he was returning back to Vadodara Railway Station (i.e. his destination railway station) with a valid and proper railway travelling ticket as a bonafide passenger by travelling in the general compartment of the train bearing No.16507 Jodhpur-Bengaluru Express. On 27.10.2018, due to sudden jerk and jolt, heavy rush and push of the passengers he fell down from the said train at the platform No.1 of Nadiad Railway station. Due to this incident the deceased sustained grievous crushed injuries and died on the spot. In these consequences, the claimant/s being the dependents are entitled to the compensation.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the d the deceased starting his journey, from Pakur to Vadodara railway station, by trains via Howrah-Nagpur, holding travelling ticket. Further, the deceased wanted to get down from the train at Vadodara Railway station (i.e his destination railway station), but, he could not get down at Vadodara Railway station and hence, he was returning back to Vadodara Railway Station (i.e. his destination railway station) with a valid and proper railway travelling ticket as a bonafide passenger by travelling in the general compartment of the train bearing No.16507 Jodhpur-Bengaluru Express. However, due to sudden jerk and jolt, heavy rush and push of the passengers he fell down from the said train at the platform No.1 of Nadiad Railway station. Due to this incident the deceased sustained grievous crushed injuries and died on the spot. He would further submit that in that way, it would

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2302/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

not be considered as untoward incident. Hence, present First Appeal be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondents while supporting to the impugned order, prays to dismiss the petition.

5. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, at the outset, let refer para 12 to 21 of the impugned judgment and order, which read as under:-

"12. 12. It is true that no ticket has been produced on behalf of the applicant but non-production of ticket does not establish the fact that the deceased at the material time was unauthorized passenger on the train in question. Moreover, exhibit A/1 ticket bearing No.UTE 83104417 was recovered in possession of the deceased clearly indicates that he was habitual to travel after purchasing the ticket. It is an admitted position in this case that subsequent to his fall he died. In such circumstances, the possibility of losing a ticket, in my considered view, cannot be ruled out. As such, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the applicant.

13. Moreover, the Respondent has not produced any cogent or reliable evidence to establish that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger at the time of the incident. Hence, the conclusion arrived at, in the original DRM's Report that deceased was not a bonafide passenger at the material time is not accepted for want of sufficient evidence. In the examination-in-chief of Shashikant Lata i.e. RW-1 stated that "no any travelling authority from Vadodara to Nadiad was found with him."

14. High Court of Madras held in the case of Eswari & others V/S Union of India cited in 2021 (2) T.A.C.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2302/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

329 mention in Para No.8 relied on Apex Court Judgment of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar and in this judgment para 11 reads as follows:

"(11) We are quite conscious of the position of law that is provided in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, if a fact is within the special knowledge of a person, the burden of proving such person and as provided in illustration (b) of the Section, a person is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket, that burden of proving that he had a ticket is upon him.

But such principle is not applicable to a case of a dead person whose dead body was found on the railway track and whose body was taken in custody by the Railway Police. In such a situation, it is the duty of the railway सत्यमेव जयत AHMEDABAD BENCH authority to first give evidence that he was without a valid ticket and if such evidence is given the onus shifts upon the claimants to prove that he was a bonafide passenger having a valid ticket. In this case, as no person on behalf of the Railway has given any such evidence not has any person come forward to disclose that articles were found with the victim, we conclude that the initial burden of proving such fact had not been discharged. We cannot lose sight of the fact that one in not entitled to enter even the platform of a railway station without having a valid platform ticket and one takes the risk of criminal prosecution by boarding a train without ticket. In such circumstances, in the absence of any evidence of railway authority asserting absence of a valid ticket, we are of the opinion, there is no just reason for totally discarding the evidence of PWI, the mother of the victim, who deposed and asserted that it was she who purchased the ticket for her son, handed over the same to him and saw him off the railway station. We have already mentioned that in cross- examination, no suggestion was even given to her denying those assertions."

15. In view of the principle laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V/S Rina Devi, 2018 AIR (SC) 2362 in para

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2302/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

No.17.4 held that "However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue cane decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances."

In the affidavit claimant mentioned that "he was returning back from Ahmedabad to Vadodara Railway Station (i.e. his destination railway station) with a valid and proper railway travelling ticket as a bonafide passenger by travelling in the general compartment of the train bearing No.16507 named Jodhpur-Bengaluru Express.

16. In view of the above, held that the deceased was undertaking his journey from Nadiad to Vadodara as a bona-fide passenger as defined under Section 2 (29) read with Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 and accordingly this issue is dec favour of the applicant and against the respondent.

17. It has been averred by applicants applicants that that on on 25.10.2018, 25.1 the deceased starting his journey, from Pakur to Vadodara railway station, by trains via Howrah-Nagpur, holding travelling ticket bearing No.UTE 83104417. It has further been averred in the claim application that on 27.10.2018 he wanted to get down from the train at Vadodara Railway station (i.e his destination railway station), but, he could not get down at Vadodara Railway station and hence, he was returning back to Vadodara Railway Station (i.e. his destination railway station) with a valid and proper railway travelling ticket as a bonafide passenger by travelling in the general compartment of the train bearing No.16507 Jodhpur- Bengaluru Express. On 27.10.2018, due to sudden jerk and jolt, heavy rush and push of the passengers he fell down from the said train at the platform No.1 of Nadiad Railway station. Due to this incident the deceased sustained grievous crushed injuries and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2302/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

died on the spot. To substantiate the claim, the applicants have placed on record certain documents relating to the incident as exhibit A/1 to A18.

18. Although, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent that the deceased fell down due to his- own negligence he was fell down and cut-off from the running train therefore, the present case is covered under clause (c) to proviso to section 124 A as such the respondent railway administration is absolved from its liability to pay compensation. At the time of cross-examination, Shashikant Lata i.e. RW-1 stated that "I personally observed and examined the dead body but not finad any external injury marks on the body. Now I am saying that, the right hand of the said deceased was cut off and crushed from the shoulder. The left hand was broken form shoulder but it was intact with the body."

19. I am of the considered view that negligence of this kind is very common on Indian trains. It is not the same thing as a criminal act mentioned in clause

(c) to the proviso to Section 124A. A criminal act envisaged under clause (c) must have an element of malicious intent or mens rea. In the present case, respondents have failed to prove any malicious intent or mens rea of deceased. Moreover, falling down from train has been admitted on behalf of Railway respondent by way of DRM report relating to the alleged incident. In the Final Investigation Report of SDM, it has been written that "While observing the investigation papers and related papers which are सत्यमेव जयत produced, it is observed that Valu Shivabaran by case Hembrom (Besra) is died as his heart stopped due to shock as sustained injuries on the head and on the body DUE TO ACCIDENTALLY FALLEN DOWN FROM THE MIDDLE PORTION OF THE RUNNING JODHPUR-BENGALURU EXPRESS TRAIN during the the course of journey and NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES OBSERVED BY THE SAID PERSON." In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the falling down of the deceased was accidental.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2302/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India V/S Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & others reported in 2008 ACJ 1895, has held that :

"Section 124 A of the Railways Act, 1989 casts strict liability on the Railway even the deceased died due to his own fault. Then also, Railway is liable to pay amount of compensation."

21. In the case of Union of India V/S Rina Devi reported in 2018 AIR (SC) 2362, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "Victim will be entitled to compensation and will not fall under proviso to Section 124A merely on plea of negligence of victim as contributing factor."

In the case of Megha & others V/S Union of India reported in 2021 ACJ 1385, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay-Nagpur Bench has held that :

12. In the present case, there was no eyewitness to the incident. The deceased was resident of Tiwsa.

Nothing is on record to show that the deceased was run over by the train. There was no reason for the deceased to come to Borkhedi without any ticket or come under the train to commit suicide. Only because body of deceased was cut into two pieces it cannot be said that he was run over by the train."

In the case of Union of India V/S Tatyarao Chawan reported in 2013 ACJ 1508, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay-Nagpur Bench has held that:

There can be no other the presence of the body that the deceased fell down from the train. From the evidence available on record it is clear that deceased would have fallen from the running train during the course of his journey. Even though there is no eyewitness to the incident, it is reasonably held that the deceased died due to accidental fall from the train."

RW-1 Shashikant Lata stated in his cross examination

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2302/2023 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

that " it is true that neither the Driver of train no.16507 or any railway employee informed me that the said deceased whose dead body was lying on the track came across the engine of train no.16507 or in front of any other train or have committed suicide or done trespassing of the platform number 1 of Nadiad railway station."

6. According to this Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has committed no error in passing the impugned order. The deceased was travelling from Pakur to Vadodara with valid ticket. The deceased was bona fide purchaser and proceedings u/s 124A are governed by principles of preponderance and probabilities, not the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which required in criminal trial. Once foundational facts are proved, the railway is bound to give compensation to the victim.